pulga wrote:No, properly attending is being done by a sotápanna who has attained the path.

Well, I suppose I must be a dullard, confused by such things as SN 55.5 which says that yoniso manasikara is a factor for stream-entry.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

I'd like to add that when I regard Suttas as aberrant I by no means reject them. I simply set them aside until I get a better understanding of the Suttas as a whole: it's an exercise in hermenuetics.

Setting aside, rejecting, no real difference in as much as you are not taking what they say seriously and you have no reasoned argument for your setting aside of them, other than they do not fit your predilection.

All the Sutta quotations you posted are valid, but they reflect aspects of the Dhamma as seen through the understanding of an ariyan, i.e. in light of the tilakkhana, saccanulomika.

First, we get from you the suttas that I quoted are likely aberrant, but now they are not. But even more interesting is the highly selective reading of Ven Bodhi's footnote 13 on page 729 of CDB:

pulga wrote:I personally think that the Suttas themselves makes this apparent, but it is worth noting regarding yoniso manasikara that Ven. Bodhi finds the traditional interpretation "unsatisfactory" and in his footnote to the Vipassísutta (CDB 729) offers his own understanding of the term, placing yoniso manasikara before paññá and thus at the level of the puthujjana -- which is puzzling given that throughout the Suttas yoniso manasikara is attributed to the ariyasávaka, if not overtly, at least implicitly. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=480#p233393

The first thing Ven Bodhi says in his footnote is:

The commentaries consistently gloss yoniso manasikara as upayamanasikara, pathamanasikara,, “attention that is right means, attention on the (right) course.” [He then discusses the particular commentarial gloss and then adds:] . . . In general sutta usage yoniso manasikara is the forerunner of paññā, while paññā is the efficient cause of abhisamaya.

In other words the sutta in question and particularly the commentarial gloss are the outliers here, and your reading of Ven Bodhi’s footnote is at best highly selective, and what Ven Bodhi actually says does not support your contention that the gloss of the sutta found on CDB 537 is characteristic of how yoniso manasikara is used throughout the suttas. You have seriously misrepresented Ven Bodhi.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with this statement of yours is that Ven Bodhi is quite clear as to his "interpretation" of the role of yoniso manasikara, even in his footnote 13 in CDB 729.

Your contention that the whole of Ven. Bodhi's thoughts on yonisomanasikara can be contained in a few of his footnotes is not only absurd, but an insult. But please do share with us Ven. Bodhi's interpretation in your own words, rather than quacking things out through cutting and pasting.

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with this statement of yours is that Ven Bodhi is quite clear as to his "interpretation" of the role of yoniso manasikara, even in his footnote 13 in CDB 729.

Your contention that the whole of Ven. Bodhi's thoughts on yonisomanasikara can be contained in a few of his footnotes is not only absurd, but an insult. But please do share with us Ven. Bodhi's interpretation in your own words, rather than quacking things out through cutting and pasting.

Ven Bodhi has been quite clear in his various footnotes about how yoniso manasikara is used in the suttas in his translations of the Nikayas.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with this statement of yours is that Ven Bodhi is quite clear as to his "interpretation" of the role of yoniso manasikara, even in his footnote 13 in CDB 729.

Your contention that the whole of Ven. Bodhi's thoughts on yonisomanasikara can be contained in a few of his footnotes is not only absurd, but an insult. But please do share with us Ven. Bodhi's interpretation in your own words, rather than quacking things out through cutting and pasting.

Ven Bodhi has been quite clear in his various footnotes about how yoniso manasikara is used in the suttas in his translations of the Nikayas.

Excuse the harsh tone of my last post: I was just being a little mischievious. But in all honesty I do think there is a lot unsaid in his notes that warrant further elaboration.

pulga wrote:Excuse the harsh tone of my last post: I was just being a little mischievious. But in all honesty I do think there is a lot unsaid in his notes that warrant further elaboration.

Maybe you need to practice yoniso manasikara. Ven Bodhi's comments in his notes reflect clearly what is going on in in the suttas, and that certainly is supported by Ven Analayo's comments as quoted above.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:Maybe you need to practice yoniso manasikara. Ven Bodhi's comments in his notes reflect clearly what is going in in the suttas, and that certainly is supported by Ven Analayo's comments as quoted above.

At some point it proves helpful to put the writings of others into one's own words, especially when you believe yourself to hold to their views.

tiltbillings wrote:Maybe you need to practice yoniso manasikara. Ven Bodhi's comments in his notes reflect clearly what is going in in the suttas, and that certainly is supported by Ven Analayo's comments as quoted above.

At some point it proves helpful to put the writings of others into one's own words, especially when you believe yourself to hold to their views.

If you say so; however, given your propensity to not answer direct questions put to you, or to directly respond to points raised in response to what you have said, and not to mention your failing to actually make reasoned and exampled arguments to support your position, I do not find your telling me what I should be doing here compelling. You have your opinions about yoniso manasikara and I have mine, which I share with the likes of Vens Bodhi and Analayo.

As for your argument, you based a fair amount of it on Ven Bodhi's footnote 13 from page CDB 729, but you also destroyed your argument by your ignoring the significant points Ven Bodhi raised in that footnote. Neither the actual text of MN 2, a text to which you appealed, nor the commentary to it, as Ven Bodhi carefully outlined, support your position. You tried to dismiss other texts that were quoted to counter your position as being aberrant and then in a major, and with an unexplained, shift of position you claimed the same texts are speaking from a stand point of being ariya, but in both cases, you offered no actual support for your claims. Essentially, while you have made claims about the nature of yoniso Manasikara, you have not come close to actually offering any support for your claims, and in contrast what Vens Bodhi, Analayo, and Dhammanando had to say shows that what you are claiming fails, falls flat, has no legs, is impotent. Before I even remotely consider your request to "use my own words," I would like to see you do some actual heavy lifting here and actually present a reasoned and exampled argument for your your claims. There is, otherwise, no point in my wasting my time any further with this, given your lack of actually engaging in a dialogue.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?Thanks

danieLion wrote:I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?Thanks

I would not think that my perspective would be difficult to identify. Essentially, while insight -- vipassana -- cannot be willed into existence, the conditions that can give rise to insight can be deliberately cultivated, as taught by the Buddha, by one's actions, choices -- sila, bhāvanā, the rest of the eightfold ennobling path.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

danieLion wrote:I've been following this post since it's inception, and understand the OP but must confess I find the rest of it quite byzantine. Would someone please summarize the conflicting perspectives and perhaps note which perspective which poster aligns with?Thanks

I would not think that my perspective would be difficult to identify. Essentially, while insight -- vipassana -- cannot be willed into existence, the conditions that can give rise to insight can be deliberately cultivated, as taught by the Buddha, by one's actions, choices -- sila, bhāvanā, the rest of the eightfold ennobling path.

tiltbillings wrote:While yoniso manasikara may be an attribute of an ariya, it is a something to cultivate in order to attain to that level, otherwise one is stuck in the problem that we see with the Sujin people in this thread, you have to be awakened to be awakened.

That doesn't seem quite right since the usual message I get from K.S. and her students seems different, e.g. in relation to the above issue, I take it they'd say something like - mindfulness (sati) is always wholesome, and attention would also be wholesome when accompanying any sort of a wholesome state (citta). Wisdom (pa~n~na) may or may not arise in those instances. If it does, it's conditioned at that instance by mindfulness, attention and other wholesome factors (cittas, cetasikas, though I forget which conditional relations out of 24, as I think there's mutual conditioning going on there). Wisdom itself may be of any strength at the time, dependent on conditions, i.e. it could be of samatha kind (many degrees there), of vipassana kind (many degrees there), or of supramundane kind (ariyan) .

As for the original issue of the thread as to how exactly does wisdom (along with mindfulness and other wholesome factors) actually arise at the time, I take it they'd usually say - conditioned. I don't think there's any problem saying conventionally that a person cultivates wholesome states, mindfulness, wisdom, etc. Though, I do like abhidhamma people for the attention to detail, so they'd usually add something like - the term "cultivation" should be taken on best merits, i.e. it stands in for the actual arising of wholesome mental states, which then in turn condition more wholesome states, hence cultivation. In other words, if I like to meditate, my main concern then is knowing when wholesome states are arising, and when they are not, and the biggest hurdle is believing that wholesome states are arising, while in fact, they are not. Then what is unwholesome is taken for wholesome, and in turn conditions more unwholesome. It always seems good to be reminded about this possibility and get as many pointers to possible mistakes, even if at times they might seem arrogant. My take anyway.

tiltbillings wrote:While yoniso manasikara may be an attribute of an ariya, it is a something to cultivate in order to attain to that level, otherwise one is stuck in the problem that we see with the Sujin people in this thread, you have to be awakened to be awakened.

That doesn't seem quite right since the usual message I get from K.S. and her students seems different, e.g. in relation to the above issue, I take it they'd say something like - mindfulness (sati) is always wholesome, and attention would also be wholesome when accompanying any sort of a wholesome state (citta). Wisdom (pa~n~na) may or may not arise in those instances. If it does, it's conditioned at that instance by mindfulness, attention and other wholesome factors (cittas, cetasikas, though I forget which conditional relations out of 24, as I think there's mutual conditioning going on there). Wisdom itself may be of any strength at the time, dependent on conditions, i.e. it could be of samatha kind (many degrees there), of vipassana kind (many degrees there), or of supramundane kind (ariyan) .

What i am going by is what is being said here by Sujin followers and by the links to a Sujin talk, and that is less than clear what they actually teach, but even your explanation of Sujin's point of view does not make it at all coherent in terms of the suttas.

As for the original issue of the thread as to how exactly does wisdom (along with mindfulness and other wholesome factors) actually arise at the time, I take it they'd usually say - conditioned. I don't think there's any problem saying conventionally that a person cultivates wholesome states, mindfulness, wisdom, etc.

You obviously have not been following this thread.

Though, I do like abhidhamma people . . . .

The Sujin business is one take only on Abhidhamma and Theravada in general, but it seems that they are quite willing to criticize and dismiss those who do not agree with their point of view, and it is rather unfortunate and speaks very poorly for them. If you have not, you might want to read through this thread.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Sure, we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. Either way, I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying. Of course, I understand the difficulties with terminology and have them myself. Anyway, if there's a particular point you want to discuss, please raise it, though apologies if I'm slow in replying, not much time. (Incidentally, for years now I wanted to ask you what it is that you do for a living, to have so much time to post I mean. Maybe I need to look into a different line of work.)

pt1 wrote:I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying.

I think you disagree with other Sujin folk; the perspective here has been quite clearly spelled out, and it doesn't lie alongside the suttas to which it has been compared. Your disagreement with what you think of as a mischaracterization puts you in agreement with the suttas in this matter, it would seem, & not with the earlier-espoused (Sujin-esque?) view made by some.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

pt1 wrote:Sure, we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. Either way, I don't think K.S. actually teaches that you have to be awakened to be awakened, and most of your conclusions / summaries of what K.S., D.F. and others were saying do not seem to me to be equivalent to what they were actually saying. Of course, I understand the difficulties with terminology and have them myself. Anyway, if there's a particular point you want to discuss, please raise it, though apologies if I'm slow in replying, not much time. (Incidentally, for years now I wanted to ask you what it is that you do for a living, to have so much time to post I mean. Maybe I need to look into a different line of work.)

Best wishes

Several things: the response to dhamma follower concerning having to be awakened to be awakened was an attempt at trying to clarify something she said several times, but -- alas -- she never clarified the point, even after asking her to do so several times.

we could all do with some more patience, good will and willingness to take the other person's response on best merits. I am not deliberately in my responses to robertk, Virgo/Kevin, and dhamma follower trying to misrepresent what they are saying. As I asked you once already, have you actually read the exchanges in this thread? Please show me where I have significantly misunderstood what was being said by the Sujin followers here.

(I am a Registred Nurse, working night shift, which pays me well enough that I can do quite well working part time. When I am not working I keep night shift hours.)

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

daverupa wrote:I think you disagree with other Sujin folk; the perspective here has been quite clearly spelled out, and it doesn't lie alongside the suttas to which it has been compared. Your disagreement with what you think of as a mischaracterization puts you in agreement with the suttas in this matter, it would seem, & not with the earlier-espoused (Sujin-esque?) view made by some.

I don’t know. Coming originally from a sutta-only background, it took several years to get through the terminology and understand K.S.’s teaching and her students on their own merits (largely not native-English speakers, largely non-meditators, mostly without strong connections to modern Western Buddhist traditions and vocabulary). I obviously don’t think that K.S. teaching goes against the suttas, but there are differences between what K.S. and Mahasi Saydaw or Nyanyanyanda for example teach, so we’re talking about differences in the interpretation of the suttas. It’s useful, though probably not crucial, to understand these differences. Either way, whatever/whoever I study, I find the main question is – do I understand correctly what a certain teacher is teaching? I think it takes at least a few years of careful and respectful study to get to understand the teacher on his own merits and even then my understanding would be flawed by my own limitations at the time.